- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
2024 was the warmest year since records began being kept 175 years ago. According to the World Meteorological Organization’s latest State of the Global Climate report:
- Each of the past ten years set a new global temperature record.
- Each of the past eight years set a new record for ocean heat content.
- The 18 lowest Arctic sea-ice extents on record were all in the past 18 years.
- The three lowest Antarctic ice extents were in the past three years.
- The largest three-year loss of glacier mass on record occurred in the past three years.
- The rate of sea level rise has doubled since satellite measurements began.[1]
There is no room for doubt: Earth is getting hotter. The question now is how hot will it get?
You must log in or register to comment.
Important to understand that these projections have in fact gone down in the last decade, due to the unexpectedly quick roll-out of solar and battery tech.
1.5 was never going to happen, but between
22.5 and 5 there’s still everything to play for. And22.5 will look an awful lot better than 5.PS: realistically, 2’s not happening either. But the point is that runaway warming is not a certainty and every bit of progress will count.
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889?login=false
According to this paper, the paleorecord for our current atmosphere is 10° of warming. So over some period of time, in the future we will reach 10° unless the atmosphere changes before that point. We will reach an equilibrium at 10° hotter than preindustrial. That’s based on today’s existing CO2.
Eventually. There is a very slow lag time. The lag has confused a lot of the science also (because it makes change hard to measure and there are confounding factors). The response time to reach the full amount of temperature change is around one century!
Luckily, we can avoid the warming if we just remove the CO2 before the temperature rises.
Unluckily, we don’t have the technology nor energy sources to remove the CO2.
Or, second solution space: geoengineering / blocking sunlight / other energy interventions that happen at a global scale.
Something I read 10,000 years ago talked about putting solar panels on bodies of water. We capture energy via the panels, and the panels cool the water via shading which helps the entire ecosystem of the lake to prosper.
This on large scale could be an aspect of a solution - not a solution on its own but a piece of the puzzle.
Then again, it’s not oil so, no.
That’s a solution for decarbonization of future power generation for humanity, but it doesnt seem to remove the pollution that is changing the climate, so the climate isn’t going to reverse itself back to safe stable starting conditions.
So it’s not a solution. Do you see why not?
I’m just talking meditation treatment, and I explicitly said it’s part of but not a solution on its own.
The conversation in the media has been training people to look at the wrong aspect of the problem.
So basically you have the flows and the sinks.
The flow here would be the rate at which more CO2 pollution is added.
The sink is the total amount of CO2 that’s already in the atmosphere.
Everyone keeps talking about allowing more carbon, slowing more carbon or somehow changing the growth of additional carbon.
Future carbon isn’t what’s changing the climate right now. There is a huge time lag of around 15 years between when you dump CO2 into the atmosphere and when it starts actually moving global temperatures.
Current day global temperature doesn’t actually reflect anything with the rate of pollution. What it is showing us is the total amount of carbon in the sink from 15 years ago.
If you stopped all new carbon today you’re already on a ride to 10° that started way in the past. And it wouldn’t stop this from happening. The slowing of the rate isn’t even within the solution space. At all.
Anyhow, going beyond the facts of what is going on, I think there are two real reasons why people talk about the flows even though these are irrelevant. And it’s two things, one thing is that is assumes that humans are not going to survive if we stop polluting, so adding more pollution is a baked in assumption. And two, we have NO ANSWER for how we can possibly clean the sink and put the entire global atmosphere back to the start. So if you start looking at the REAL problem you start having emotional responsibility and no possibility of solving it, and that makes people unhappy. It’s implicatory denial.
The IPCC targets are for the current century. Predicting human technology or even human existence any further than that is a bit of a fool’s game. And the rest of the planet will obviously go on without us, 10 degrees hotter for a while until feedback systems kick in. Having taken the hit to biodiversity.
But sure, that’s interesting information.
At 10° it’s the new equilibrium. Not “for a while”. Not “until feedback systems kick in”. After the feedback systems stop the increase it will be 10° hotter and stay there for tens of thousands of years.
and stay there for tens of thousands of years
Exactly. Until the feedback systems kick in. Earth’s temperature has been a rollercoaster ride in geological time. As you surely know already.
3.1 by the end of the century? Wow.
Yeah, a lot of people are going to die.
Definitely. The wars this will cause will exacerbate the whole situation as well.
Most of deaths will be from famine. Even some 5 billion dead after nuclear exchange will be from resulting agriculture failure.
Within a single human lifespan. And it keeps rising a lot more.
